Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone touches the thigh-bone of a dead person or of Hekdesh, he is Tamei. The minimum Shi'ur of the former is - the size of a barley.

(b) 'of Hekdesh' means - a bone of Pigul or Nosar, which are Metamei the hands mi'de'Rabbanan, as we learned in a Mishnah in Pesachim.

(a) Whereas the two above bones are Metamei, irrespective of whether they are closed or holed, the thigh-bones of a Neveilah or of a Sheretz, the Tana says - are only Tamei if they are holed, since the bones themselves are not Tamei ("be'Nivlasah", 've'Lo ba'Atzamos'), and they are only Metamei in their capacity as Shomrim of the marrow that they contain.

(b) The reason that the bones need to be holed is - because a Shomer is only Metamei if one is able to touch the Tum'ah that is being guarded.

(c) The minimum Shi'ur of the hole is - sufficient to allow a hair through (to touch the marrow).

(d) The Tana learns that they are Metamei be'Masa as well - from the Hekesh of "ha'Nosei" to "ha'Noge'a" (like Rebbi Akiva on the previous Amud).

(a) The Reisha of our Mishnah renders the Kulyas ha'Meis Tamei Maga but not Tamei Ohel, we explain, because the Tana is speaking when it contains less than a k'Zayis of Basar - and by the same token, less than a k'Zayis of marrow?

(b) Otherwise it would be Metamei, even though it is totally covered by the bone - because of the principle 'Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah' ('when a Meis is in an Ohel that does not have a Tefach space between it and the roof (or between it and the walls), the Tum'ah simply rises up to the sky').

(c) We suggest that the bone ought perhaps to be Metamei even if it contains neither a k'Zayis Basar on the outside, nor a k'Zayis of marrow inside - on the assumption that a. marrow tends to return to the bone of a live animal, and b. it causes the Basar to re-grow too, thereby transforming the bone into a limb.

(d) Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rav Chiya rejects this supposition however - by establishing that the marrow does not in fact, cause the Basar to re-grow.

(e) We just learned that the minimum Shi'ur for a bone of a Meis is the size of a barley. The limb of a Sheretz - does not have a minimum size.

(a) Even though the Tana is speaking when the bone of the Meis contains less than a k'Zayis of marrow, 'Kulyas ha'Mukdashin, Kulyas Neveilah and Kulyas ha'Sheretz' must be speaking - when they contain at least a k'Zayis.

(b) We cannot answer that the bone itself combines to make up the Shi'ur k'Z ayis - because we learned at the beginning of the Perek that the Shomer of Tum'ah Chamurah does not combine to make up the Shi'ur.

(c) As we just explained, 'Kulyas ha'Meis' comes to teach us that the marrow inside the bone does not cause the flesh to re-grow. In the case of 'Kulyas ...

1. ... ha'Mukdashin', the Chidush is - that the bones of Kodshim that served Nosar render the hands Tamei (by becoming a basis for something that is Asur, even though they are closed), as Rav Mari bar Avuhah Amar Rebbi Yitzchak taught.
2. ... ha'Neveilah' and 'Kulyas ha'Sheretz' it is - that even if the bone contains a k'Zayis of marrow, it is only Metamei when it is open, but not when it is closed (because they are not then considered a Shomer).

(d) We do not already know the Chidush of Kulyas ha'Mukdashin from the Mishnah in Pesachim - because the Tana there only mentions Pigul and Nosar themselves, but not the bones.

(a) Abaye disagrees with Rav Yehudah b'rei de'Rav Chiya's explanation of Kulyas ha'Meis. Even though he maintains that the marrow inside the bone does cause the Basar to re-grow, the bone is not Metamei in any event (due to it being considered an Eiver) - since in Abaye's opinion, our Mishnah is speaking when they had previously mutilated the skin with a saw or a knife, in which case, the Basar would no longer have regrown.

(b) Rebbi Elazar, whom he quotes, confines this mutilation to there where they did so around the animal's girth, leaving a strip of mutilated skin between the two sections of healthy skin. But if they did it along the length of the Basar, where the flesh can still heal along the length of the body on both sides of the strip, the flesh would still be able to regrow, and the animal will be Metamei (even if their is no marrow and no flesh).

(c) And when Rebbi Elazar concludes 've'Simnayich Dikla', he means - that this distinction can be easily remembered because it is similar to a date-palm, which will wither if a strip of bark is removed from around its trunk, but not if it is removed from its length (for the same reason).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan goes even further than Abaye. According to him, the Tana is speaking where there is a k'Zayis of marrow inside the bone, which causes the flesh to re-grow. And when the Tana refers to 'ha'Noge'a', with regard to Kulyas ha'Meis - he means 'Ma'ahil' (that it forms an Ohel).

(b) By explaining the Mishnah like this - he avoids breaking it up into two different sections (in the way that we learned until now). Because according to Rebbi Yochanan, the entire Mishnah now speaks when the bone contains a k'Zayis of marrow.

(c) The problem with the Seifa (with regard to Kulyas ha'Neveilah and Kulyas ha'Sheretz) will then be - why in the Seifa, the Tana requires the bone to be open? Why is it not considered an Eiver anyway, due to the marow inside?

(d) Rebbi Binyamin bar Gidal Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore establishes the Mishnah - by marrow which has gone dry, which no longer has the power to heal the Basar, but which is nevertheless considered Neveilah or Sheretz if the bone is holed. In the Reisha on the other hand, it is still considered Basar and therefore Metamei whether the bone is holed or not (as we explained).

(a) The Mishnah in Ohalos rules that someone who 'touches' half a k'Zayis of a Meis and either forms an Ohel over another half-k'Zayis or the other half-k'Zayis forms an Ohel over him - is Tamei ...

(b) ... provided that the two take place simultaneously.

(c) We try to support Rebbi Yochanan from there - inasmuch as we assume that 'touches' means Ohel ...

(d) ... based on another Mishnah there, which rules that two half-Shi'urim of Tum'ah combine only if they belong to the same category of Tum'ah (i.e. Negi'ah with Negi'ah, or Ohel with Ohel).

8)

(a) We counter this proof however, from the Seifa of that Mishnah, which rules that if someone touches half a k'Zayis of a Meis, whilst something else forms an Ohel over another half-k'Zayis of Meis and over him, he remains Tahor ...

(b) ... a proof that 'Noge'a' means touches, because if it meant 'Ohel', there would be no reason for him not to be Tamei.

(c) So Rebbi Zeira establishes the Reisha where the half-k'Zayis over which he is Ma'ahil is lying in a space between two wooden cupboards that are less than a Tefach apart. Consequently, this is a case of 'Tum'ah Retzutzah' (which we discussed on the previous Amud) which rises, and which is considered as if the space was filled with Tum'ah. Consequently - when he places his hand there, it is as if he actually touched the piece of Meis (even if his hand was much higher than the Tum'ah).

(d) The source of this Halachah ('Tum'ah Retzutah ... ') is - 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(e) It now transpires that - it is not 'Ohel' which the Tana refers to as 'Noge'a' (like Rebbi Yochanan explained), but 'Noge'a', which the Tana refers to as 'Ohel'. In fact, the person in the Reisha is Tamei because the entire case is one of Noge'a, and not of Ohel, like Rebbi Yochanan thought.

(a) Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa rules that a spoonful of rot (dust) of a Meis that is found in a coffin - is Metamei be'Maga, be'Masa and be'Ohel ...

(b) ... 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(c) The problem with saying 'Metamei be'Maga' is - that the Tana has already listed 'be'Maga', so why repeat it?

(d) We therefore interpret it to mean - be'Ohel.

(a) The problem with interpreting 'Maga' as Ohel is - why the Tana uses two different words to describe the same concept.

(b) So Abaye differentiates between below a Tefach, which the Tana calls Maga and above a Tefach, which he calls Ohel. Rava maintains - that both of these fall under the heading of 'Maga'. Ohel, he says, refers to 'Hamshachah', meaning where the man's hand is not held directly above the piece of Meis, but a distance away, and another object is Ma'ahil over both of them (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(c) We prove from Rava's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi - that according to Rebbi Yochanan, who interprets 'Noge'a' in our Mishnah as Ohel, the author of the Mishnah is Rebbi Yossi.

(d) We cannot say this according to Abaye - according to whom only an Ohel below a Tefach is referred to as 'Maga'.

(e) We are forced to say that - because otherwise Abaye could have instituted our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi, like Rebbi Yochanan did, yet on the previous Amud, he declined to do so.

(a) Rava proves that Rebbi Yossi calls even above a Tefach 'Maga', from a Beraisa, which rules that if the ropes of a bed and the lattice-work of a window are ...

1. ... placed to cover a gap between two beams in a ceiling - they serve as a Chatzitzah between a Meis and the first floor.
2. ... spread above the Meis - then whoever 'touches' the hole becomes Tamei, the actual material (not above the hole), remains Tahor.

(b) In the ...

1. ... first ruling, even the space above the holes is Tahor - because regarding the Dinim of Mechitzah (of which they are part) less than a Tefach is not considered an opening.
2. ... second ruling, it is Tamei - because since it is not a Mechitzah, the Tum'ah penetrates even a hole that is less than a Tefach

(c) Rava proves his point from there - because if the rope and the latticework were spread within a Tefach of the Meis, they would be considered his clothes, which transmit Tum'ah just like the Meis itself.

(d) According to Abaye, they cannot be considered the clothes of the Meis (even if they are spread within a Tefach), since one is not Mevatel these items, like one is Mevatel the Meis' clothes.

(a) The problem with Abaye establishing the previous case by ropes and lattice-work that is spread within a Tefach of the Meis - is that we ought then to apply the principle 'Tum'ah Temunah Boka'as ve'Olah' (like we say by Tum'ah Retzutzah).

(b) He therefore concludes - that Rebbi Yossi does not hold of the principle 'Tum'ah Temunah ... ' (see Tosfos DH 'ka'Savar Rebbi Yossi').

(c) And he proves it from a Mishnah in Ohalos, where the Tana Kama rules that if the draw of a wooden cupboard that is a Tefach deep, but whose entrance point is less than a Tefach, and that ...

1. ... contains a piece of Meis - whatever is in the room is Tamei.
2. ... contains a Tahor object, and a piece of Meis is lying in the room - the object in the drawer remains Tahor.

(a) Even though the entrance is less than a Tefach, the room is Tamei - because the piece of Meis is destined to enter the room on its way out.

(b) Yet in the reverse case, where the Tum'ah is in the room, whatever is lying in the draw, remains Tahor - because a. the drawer is not Pose'ach Tefach, and b. the piece of Meis is not destined to enter the drawer.

(c) Rebbi Yossi however, rules that even in the first case, what is lying in the room is Tahor, too - because it is possible to cut the piece of Meis in two and take it out half at a time, or to burn it where it is.

(d) The Tana Kama rules in the Seifa, where the cupboard is standing on the threshold of the room facing outwards, that if the Tum'ah is ...

1. ... in the drawer - then whatever is in the room is Tahor (because the piece of Meis no longer needs to enter the room on its way out).
2. ... in the room - then whatever is in the drawer is Tahor too, for the same reason.

(a) And we learned on this Beraisa 'Rebbi Yossi Metaher' - which is problematic, since in the Seifa, the Tana Kama too, says Tahor, whereas in the Reisha, Rebbi Yossi has already stated his opinion.

(b) So we ascribe Rebbi Yossi's statement to a second reason for the Tana Kama's ruling in the Reisha 'Tum'ah be'Sochah, ha'Bayis Tamei' - in a case where the drawer is less than a Tefach deep, because of the principle 'Tum'ah Temunah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah'.

(c) And this reason will affect the Seifa - where the reason of 'Sof Tum'ah Latzeis' does not apply.

(d) To which Rebbi Yossi now says - 'Tahor', because he does not hold of the principle of 'Tum'ah Temunah ... '.

(e) Which is precisely what Abaye is trying to prove.